Michael J. French v. New Hampshire Insurance Company ( 2016 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-16-00033-CV
Michael J. FRENCH,
Appellant
v.
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellee
From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2015-CI-15641
Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Jason Pulliam, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 20, 2016
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION
On March 22, 2016, we notified pro se Appellant Michael J. French that his brief filed on
March 16, 2016, failed to comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. We recited some of the defects in his brief: e.g., no part of the brief contained
any citations to the clerk’s record, the brief failed to list or cite any authorities to support
Appellant’s arguments, and the brief contained no proof of service. See id. R. 9.5(d), (e).
We struck Appellant’s brief and ordered him to file an amended brief that corrected the
listed deficiencies and fully complied with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. We
04-16-00033-CV
warned Appellant that if the amended brief did not comply with our order, we could “strike the
brief, prohibit [Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a
brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a)(1) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if
an appellant fails to timely file a brief).
On April 8, 2016, Appellant filed an amended brief. The amended brief contains an index
of authorities and other sections required by Rule 38.1 (e.g., Identity of Parties and Counsel, Table
of Contents), but it fails to comply with Rule 38.1. The 624 page brief, including approximately
606 pages of exhibits that do not appear to be from the clerk’s record, refers to the Railway Labor
Act of 1926, a collective bargaining agreement from 2003, a few foreign jurisdiction cases
(without citations), and other materials.
Appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that Appellant failed to satisfy the
relevant provisions of the Texas Labor Code, see TEX. LAB. CODE ANN. § 406.071 (West 2015),
and the trial court granted the motion against Appellant. But Appellant’s brief contains no citations
to appropriate authorities and no citations to the record. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i) (requiring
“clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and
to the record”). The statement of the case section comprises about six pages of assertions of facts
pertaining to Appellant’s claims, but does not address the summary judgment motion or state how
the trial court erred by granting the motion. The brief does not cite or address section 406.071 of
the Texas Labor Code. Instead, the summary of argument section consists of three sentences
arguing that Appellant’s “case warranted being heard and was never given that right.” There is no
argument section. Contra id.
Appellant’s brief is wholly inadequate to present any questions for appellate review. See
Ruiz v. State, 293 S.W.3d 685, 693 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. ref’d); Robert L. Crill,
Inc. v. Bond, 76 S.W.3d 411, 423 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). We strike Appellant’s
-2-
04-16-00033-CV
amended brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1),
38.9(a), 42.3(b).
PER CURIAM
-3-